Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
Iran’s decentralized “Mosaic Defence” doctrine was designed by Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, a former commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The strategy was developed around 2003-05, and work began in 2005 when he was director of the IRGC’s Centre for Strategic Studies. In 2007, when he assumed command of the IRGC, it was implemented.
The strategy divides Iran into 31 provincial commands, each functioning as an independent operational unit. In the event of a breakdown in central leadership or communications, local commanders are authorised to assume control, launch strikes, and sustain military operations without awaiting instructions. The doctrine emphasizes dispersion, redundancy, and local autonomy (resembling the German Auftragstaktik), ensuring regional commanders can act as local “Supreme Leaders” if Tehran is cut off. The doctrine seems to be working well so far, even though most of the country’s top leadership, about 35 leaders as of date, have been killed in the US and Israeli attacks in the last 20 days.
Some of the latest developments in this war are:
- According to a recent report, Iran has enlarged the war zone by firing two ballistic missiles at the joint US-UK military base at Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands. The base is a staging hub for the USA to facilitate its campaign against Iran.
- The U.S. military is likely to deploy three more warships and about 2,500 more marines in the Middle East.
- The US is now looking at securing the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, which provides another link between the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean through the Suez Canal. It links the Red Sea in the North-West to the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean in the South East. About 10-12% of the total global trade passes through this strait.
- 22 countries, led by the USA, have agreed to support efforts to ensure safe passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz.
In the last couple of days, the US president seems to be having second thoughts after the belligerence that had been on display so far. This assumption is based on some developments in the conflict and recent statements of Mr. Trump. These are:
- Washington said it would temporarily ease sanctions to permit the sale of 140 million barrels of Iranian oil stranded at sea since the war began. Perhaps the US was forced to make concessions because of increasing concerns over the global energy crisis.
- Mr Trump’s open call that the policing and responsibility of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open lies more with nations like China and others whose supplies pass through these waters. He also wanted more support from NATO members.
- When Israel targeted the South Pars gas field and associated oil and petrochemical facilities in Azaliyah, Iran, the U.S. President openly denied having a hand in it and said, ‘No more attacks will be made by Israel pertaining to this site, as it is very important and valuable.”
- Most Arab allies of the US in the region have been on the hit list of Iran and already suffered serious damage to their oil and gas facilities, apart from others. The US has not succeeded in providing them with effective military cover against Iranian attacks.
- Most US bases in the region have suffered heavy damage. Several vulnerabilities in U.S. surveillance systems have been exposed, including the THAAD deployed in Jordan and the UAE, and the Ballistic Early Warning Radar deployed in Qatar.
- Many experts think that the USA and Israel have bitten more than they can bite and have underestimated Iran’s response.
- The high cost of the war has already resulted in the Pentagon requesting another $200 billion to fund the war. This demand comes in the wake of the U.S. national debt hitting a record $39 trillion.
- Stock markets across the world, including the USA, are falling daily.
- Slowly but steadily, questions are being raised by many nations and international organisations on this misadventure by the US. Given that Israel is fighting for its survival in some ways, it is the US that is in the firing line. International Rescue Committee President said the Iran war “has explosive consequences globally, and it is the world’s most vulnerable who risk paying the highest price.”
- It will take years to rebuild the damage that has accrued to the oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Kuwait.
US President Donald Trump stated, unilaterally, on March 20–21, 2026, that the United States is considering ‘winding down’ military operations against Iran, claiming that the U.S. is ‘getting very close’ to achieving its five key objectives, which were:
- Degrading Iranian missile capabilities.
- Destroying Iran’s defence industrial base.
- Eliminating the Iranian Navy and Air Force.
- Ensuring Iran never achieves nuclear capability.
- Protecting regional allies, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait.
The degree to which the US and Israel have achieved these objectives is debatable. Not to be left behind, Iran’s new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has countered Trump’s assertions and instead claimed his own victory over the U.S. and Israel. The strikes on Diego Garcia would have surprised many and added a new dimension to the war.
While President Trump has publicly messaged a ‘winding down’ of operations and claimed a military victory, his administration’s actions suggest a continued escalation. Despite his ‘mission accomplished’ rhetoric, the U.S. is simultaneously deploying 2,500 additional Marines, more ships, requesting $200 billion in new war funding, and maintaining high-intensity strikes on targets like the Natanz nuclear facility. This suggests that presently, the U.S. is not in a position to exit the conflict. The important question is whether President Trump can take a unilateral decision for the cessation of hostilities against Iran, or will it be a joint decision with Israel and the powerful Zionist lobby in the loop?
However, there are enough indications that the US President is looking for an exit route. The problem is that the US started this war, hoping for a quick resolution. In all fairness, many of its calculations have misfired. A people’s uprising has not occurred in Iran, and the regime has not collapsed. Iran’s response, both in scope and intensity, has surprised nearly everyone, even if they do not admit it. The initiative for any ceasefire now rests with Iran. If the USA accepts its three main terms, recognition of its sovereignty and legitimate rights, payment of reparations, and firm international guarantees against future attacks by the USA or Israel, it will make the world’s most powerful nation look very small.
The US President, while hinting at an endgame, ruled out a ceasefire in his typical cavalier style, stating, “You don’t do a ceasefire when you’re literally obliterating the other side.” Yes, Iran has suffered a lot of damage, but it has not been obliterated or lost its will to fight. With the USA not ready to commit boots on the ground, Iran still holds enough potential to continue the conflict. Any foolhardy attempt to launch a few thousand boots on the Iranian mainland will only result in loss of American soldiers without any gains. NATO and other allies will always be reluctant to add their boots to American boots. Already, there is an increasing number of voices within America that are questioning the President’s war with Iran.
For Iran, the Strait of Hormuz continues to be its trump card. It has already found a novel way to generate revenues by allowing ships to pass selectively. Sooner or later, pressure will mount from the rest of the world, and perhaps from within the USA itself, on President Trump to find a quick solution to the war. This will mean the USA will have to dilute its own demands while accepting some stringent terms from Iran. Either way, the loser will be the USA. Similar international pressure is unlikely to be exerted on Israel. In any case, unlike the USA, Israel is not under any obligation to accept the same.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.